This is great. I've been paying for Spotify since day one, and it's well worth it. Installed on all of my devices (desktops/cellphone/ipad/work pc) and can't do without it. Everything's just so well streamlined and synchronized. Wish they had kpop/jpop stuff on here too, but, perhaps eventually they'll tap into that area.

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

I still don't understand the putative math here: the payouts seem as good or better than radio. They all somehow think that you should count one stream, going to one person, the same as one play on radio, going to a city-wide or county-wide audience.

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense. THe issue with individual streaming vs things like radio is that streaming doesn't advertise the creation along with paying the artist. Radio does. When someone listens to a radio station they might hear something new, not with streaming where you select which music you want to play. The payouts are more via spotify (on a per listener basis) but radio gets you users who might also 1) purchase your music and 2) have never heard of you before.

Man, I paid up the instant I decided to try Spotify. $10 a month for no ads was an easy sell.

If I didn't work here I'd pay to subscribe to Ars for the no ads too!

It's an incredibly compelling product (both Spotify AND Ars! ) ... I resisted subbing to Spotify for a long time, but it's become an essential part of how I listen to/discover music now. And this is despite my nearly 11,000-track library in iTunes from CDs and what not.

It's amazing just how much music you can listen to when you work at home, alone, all day, particularly when you have basically an unlimited library to select from. Spotify, RDIO, XBox Music, whatever: this former "I'll buy my music, thank you very much!" purist is totally sold on streaming services.

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense. THe issue with individual streaming vs things like radio is that streaming doesn't advertise the creation along with paying the artist. Radio does. When someone listens to a radio station they might hear something new, not with streaming where you select which music you want to play. The payouts are more via spotify (on a per listener basis) but radio gets you users who might also 1) purchase your music and 2) have never heard of you before.

I've heard a ton of interesting and new artists on Spotify. On the other hand I have been listening to the radio at work this morning and I have heard Lorde 15 times. I hear shes 17.

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense.

If you're going to make an assertion like that, you should probably follow it up with a reason.

Here's my question: Why should someone be paid every time a listener listens to a copy of a recording they made two, five, ten years ago?

Because to the person who's never heard of the artist before, it may as well be made yesterday. I heard a song by the Sea and Cake (band I'd never heard of prior), which I liked and was pleasantly surprised to find they had a large backlog - for practical purposes, all of those songs were made "yesterday", not a decade ago.

I really like Spotify, but Google's combo of "music locker + all access streaming" won me over. Having cloud access to their entire library (like Spotify) AND my own uploads of music not in their library? That's just too enticing to me.

But I'd prefer to use a non-Google service if someone else would match this feature. Here's hoping Spotify figures out some sort of cloud-locker thing as well to win me back.

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense.

If you're going to make an assertion like that, you should probably follow it up with a reason.

Here's my question: Why should someone be paid every time a listener listens to a copy of a recording they made two, five, ten years ago?

Because to the person who's never heard of the artist before, it may as well be made yesterday. I heard a song by the Sea and Cake (band I'd never heard of prior), which I liked and was pleasantly surprised to find they had a large backlog - for practical purposes, all of those songs were made "yesterday", not a decade ago.

I really like Spotify, but Google's combo of "music locker + all access streaming" won me over. Having cloud access to their entire library (like Spotify) AND my own uploads of music not in their library? That's just too enticing to me.

But I'd prefer to use a non-Google service if someone else would match this feature. Here's hoping Spotify figures out some sort of cloud-locker thing as well to win me back.

You can add your own music tracks to Spotify (and you don't get ads while listening to them even for a non-sub). Can these not be on a 'cloud location'? Not sure.

I always liked Slacker ever since they had a offline mode App on my Blackberry Curve. Internet radio on the go on a blutooth speaker was new and great!

They even sold their own music player devices to store stations. It was great and always at $3-4 for the offline feature and no ads. Now it seems On Demand and Create your own Playlists is the common wanted feature and everyone sells it for at least $10.

I got in to Spotify due to some music shows on SiriusXM also broadcast on Spotify exclusively. With a $10 for 3 month offer it was a easy sell to go no ads and other features. Wish SiriusXM on demand had more options.

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense.

If you're going to make an assertion like that, you should probably follow it up with a reason.

Here's my question: Why should someone be paid every time a listener listens to a copy of a recording they made two, five, ten years ago?

Because to the person who's never heard of the artist before, it may as well be made yesterday. I heard a song by the Sea and Cake (band I'd never heard of prior), which I liked and was pleasantly surprised to find they had a large backlog - for practical purposes, all of those songs were made "yesterday", not a decade ago.

OK, then, same question, but for yesterday.

Why do we pay for anything? Should syndicated TV be free? Music is not a necessity and you don't have to pay for or listen to it. The reason they are paid as such is because the market supports that model. Streaming = renting. If you want to listen to a song you pay the fee (or its paid for you). If you like it enough you purchase it and pay once.

Also If you paid a flat rate for a song when it was first released, how do you know it would be a hit? You would just pay good money for known acts and any unknown artist wouldn't be able to make enough to survive and would fade out.

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense.

If you're going to make an assertion like that, you should probably follow it up with a reason.

Here's my question: Why should someone be paid every time a listener listens to a copy of a recording they made two, five, ten years ago?

Because to the person who's never heard of the artist before, it may as well be made yesterday. I heard a song by the Sea and Cake (band I'd never heard of prior), which I liked and was pleasantly surprised to find they had a large backlog - for practical purposes, all of those songs were made "yesterday", not a decade ago.

OK, then, same question, but for yesterday.

Why do we pay for anything? Should syndicated TV be free? Music is not a necessity and you don't have to pay for or listen to it. The reason they are paid as such is because the market supports that model. Streaming = renting. If you want to listen to a song you pay the fee (or its paid for you). If you like it enough you purchase it and pay once.

Also If you paid a flat rate for a song when it was first released, how do you know it would be a hit? You would just pay good money for known acts and any unknown artist wouldn't be able to make enough to survive and would fade out.

Well, what's special about "today" as opposed to yesterday? Artists, by and large, don't get salaries. They sell their work and get money from the people who buy it. Why should sales only "count" on the first day of release?

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

You can either get a 9-5 and get a monthly salary, or you can invest your time into a possible large payout down the line. Making music is just one type of investment. The other major one is starting your own company. Do you also feel that a successful startup isn't entitled to dividends either, just because you choose to go for the less risky lower-payoff salary?

Edit: I'm not trying to justify that the current system works or is good, just that this view that people aren't entitled to get paid off of risky investments is idiotic.

Well, what's special about "today" as opposed to yesterday? Artists, by and large, don't get salaries. They sell their work and get money from the people who buy it. Why should sales only "count" on the first day of release?

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense.

If you're going to make an assertion like that, you should probably follow it up with a reason.

Here's my question: Why should someone be paid every time a listener listens to a copy of a recording they made two, five, ten years ago?

This argument may be academically interesting, but not particularly relevant. Whether or not you think they should be, the artists are being paid, same as they always have been (e.g. radio).

The bitching has been about the sums, but my own analysis suggests that internet streaming services pay as well if not better than radio per listener. It all boils down to them expecting a single stream to generate as much revenue as a broadcast play, which is ridiculous, as well as dismal understanding about market share (expecting new technologies adopted by a small number of people to generate revenue equal to ancient technologies with almost universal reach).

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense.

If you're going to make an assertion like that, you should probably follow it up with a reason.

Here's my question: Why should someone be paid every time a listener listens to a copy of a recording they made two, five, ten years ago?

This argument may be academically interesting, but not particularly relevant. Whether or not you think they should be, the artists are being paid, same as they always have been (e.g. radio).

Oh, sure. I'm just curious as to whether anyone who thinks the artists have a right to be paid in this way is able to explain why.

Quote:

The bitching has been about the sums, but my own analysis suggests that internet streaming services pay as well if not better than radio per listener. It all boils down to them expecting a single stream to generate as much revenue as a broadcast play, which is ridiculous, as well as dismal understanding about market share (expecting new technologies adopted by a small number of people to generate revenue equal to ancient technologies with almost universal reach).

I really like Spotify, but Google's combo of "music locker + all access streaming" won me over. Having cloud access to their entire library (like Spotify) AND my own uploads of music not in their library? That's just too enticing to me.

But I'd prefer to use a non-Google service if someone else would match this feature. Here's hoping Spotify figures out some sort of cloud-locker thing as well to win me back.

You can add your own music tracks to Spotify (and you don't get ads while listening to them even for a non-sub). Can these not be on a 'cloud location'? Not sure.

What you mean is that the Spotify software application on your local computer can access your local music like iTunes or other music managers can, and you can sync this music to your phone if you want, but it's not the same (and I always had trouble with the phone syncing anyway). I *want* cloud access, which is why I, for a while, ran a Subsonic server from home. But managing that is a pain and I'm happy to pay Google or Spotify to manage it for me, I just want to include the hard-to-find stuff they don't have.

I've been using Spotify on my laptop for over 2 years without paying a cent, streaming any song on demand. I've also been using the radio feature on mobile just about since the mobile version of Spotify launched. Maybe I've just been grandfathered in since I used Spotify while everyone else was using whatever music app was popular on Facebook at the time. That's roughly 2 years ago. All of these changes that have been announced have always been there for me, with the sole exception of listening to starred-songs on random on mobile.

damifino why the artistes are bitching. in the rest of the world, people don't continue to get money for something they did back when. Want money to keep coming in? keep working.

What a shitty justification. "Oh you made a product that is sold around the world? Well you only get one sale from it, go make more products if you want to make a living". Makes zero sense.

If you're going to make an assertion like that, you should probably follow it up with a reason.

Here's my question: Why should someone be paid every time a listener listens to a copy of a recording they made two, five, ten years ago?

Because we dont live in the middle ages anymore. We have a service and information based economy that doesnt work with a " swap you two goats for a pig" type system.

So your answer is "because money exists"?

No what exists is the idea of treating things like songs, insurance cover, rent etc different from phyiscal things likes cups of coffee, concrete or sheep. Millions of people now earn money by selling their time, expertise or creativity, not just how much stuff they knock out.

I keep hearing how great Spotify is. It would be nice if it were finally available in Canada so I could see for myself.

There's a website based version, try giving that a go and see if it works. As far as I know, it wont discriminate because your in Canada, because the IP address is part of the same pool as the USA. Could be wrong.

I was a Spotify subscriber up until I tried to add my teenage son. Without a family plan, using Spotify for multiple users is a PITA (not the sandwich bread). On top of that, we have guys at work who stream Spotify for hours a day (the free version), and I get so sick of hearing the same song multiple times in a four-hour window.

I switched to Rdio, and never looked back. They handle multiple accounts perfectly; each additional account gets cheaper (so currently my two accounts are $18 instead of $20), and as the controlling owner of both accounts I can view BOTH accounts' listening history (which, at age 12, I find he listens to some questionable songs occasionally, and that allows me a chance to talk with him intelligently about why I'd like him to hold off on listening to those kinds of songs). My daughter will get an account shortly, and that will be even less expensive.

Plus, I like the mix Rdio's stations give you. You can control the level of familiarity with the songs, ranging from very familiar to what you've based the station on, to very adventurous (and more likely to bring you songs you've not heard before). And I rarely hear a repeat during a day of streaming. Granted, that was with the paid subscription, but I found this to be true the few days I used the free service before I signed on.

I just hope that Rdio can survive; that's really the only downside, not enough people are talking about it.